If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I have the feeling that racquets for singles are lighter and weaker than for doubles. Is it true? What i mean is that mp88 would be stronger than mp100, or not?

Well, usually it's the opposite... in singles, you can afford more to use a heavier racket, which will help you with the clears. On the other hand, in doubles, you'll have a lighter racket because the pace of the game is faster and more agressive, so you need something that you can attack and deffend quickly with.

agree with you....
like me myself....even people tend to say Ti-10 is good for smashing and singles game....
I've tried for couple of months to get used to it...but still...I found that my cab 21Sp is much much better....

I actually smash harder with a Ti-10 than a Cab 21. Much harder.

This another reason why racquets are very much an individual thing - each will function differently in different hands and different styles. The Yonex graphs are there as a comparison for what they are INTENDED to be. When you wield it, it will become what it is to you.

But it shouldn't deviate that far from the intended specs anyway, so the graph is a good rough guide. The most accurate guide will be your own arms.

Firstly : MP100 is supposed to be the most offensive racket claimed by yonex and after they updated the chart it became as offensive as AT800OF than it disappear.

Secondly : Many people made comment that AT800DE is more offensive but has less control yet they put it much lower on the chart compared to MP99

So if they really collected these statistic, they would have made MP99 lower and AT800DE higher or its just BF'ers has different views

well if yonex claimed that AT800DE had more power than MP 99... then its not exactly all that defensive anymore is it lol

well.. according to the chart MP 99 is supposed to be pretty offensive.. so that doesn't really make sense to me =/ i thot its supposed to be a very balanced racket...

another thing doesn't make sense to me.. i thought NS series were supposed to be head light... so i dont really get how NS 8000 is supposed to be the most offensive racket right now... i always thought head light=less offensive, more defensive

maybe yonex should rate their rackets with the 10 point scale based on power, control,stiffness etc... kind of like their strings.. because if a high end racket had great offensive and defensive properties, its hard to put it on a graph like that along with another cheap racket lacking in offensive and defensive abilities (unless they drew giant circles like the strings comparison table )

But light racquets can let you swing faster right? Wouldn't it be also good to use it on a clear for a face and powerful one?

My experience has been that power for light rackets can not be generalized. I've had a 2U Ti 7, which is head-light and stiff. Very powerful smashes and clears.

Also tried 3U ISO 62MF, which is head-light and flexible. Adequate for average clears(requires a lot of effort), but not enough to do super high clears like the Ti 7. Smashes are weak. But then the strings on this were the factory strings, wheras for Ti 7 it was BG65 @ 22lbs.

And finally, also tried Black Knight M2010 weighing 83 grams (4U); headlight and stiff. As powerful as Ti 7, if not more powerful. Very easy to use.

thanks for putting it up!! i'm sure most people will find it useful. however.. something is bothering me... the NS 8000, being head light.. is now rated the # 2 most offensive racket in the yonex lineup.. but # 1 (MP100) and #3(AT800OF) are both head heavy.. how does that make sense? especially when all the other head light rackets (excluding NS 7000) are way down in the defensive/receive player?? does the head lightedness of NS series offer more defensive capabilities than the AT's?

i'm not sure what you mean by "that marketing dont trust this".. but AT800 isn't not for singles, just that its made for the fast play of doubles games. it doesn't matter if you use it in singles or not

i know but a light and even balanced racquet should recover better for fast double play so why not put the NS series in the double area. Cause putting racquet in the middle of the x axis make more buyer, single and double player :P

The Yonex selection chart of racquets is not a power chart. Yonex provides separate power ratings. For example, an MP-88 is rated a maximum for power whilst an MP-33 is rated a grade less powerful in Yonex's power rating. The selection chart shows the contrary.

maybe yonex should rate their rackets with the 10 point scale based on power, control,stiffness etc... kind of like their strings.. because if a high end racket had great offensive and defensive properties, its hard to put it on a graph like that along with another cheap racket lacking in offensive and defensive abilities (unless they drew giant circles like the strings comparison table )

Yonex does have such a separate rating system for power, control, and flex. It is based on a 5-point scale. Perhaps you fellows are mixing the two up-the Yonex selection chart and the separate power/control/flex rating table.

Yonex does have such a separate rating system for power, control, and flex. It is based on a 5-point scale. Perhaps you fellows are mixing the two up-the Yonex selection chart and the separate power/control/flex rating table.

nono im not mixing it up, im just saying that the 5 point scale isn't good enough. too many rackets are rated 5/5, which isn't very objective. its even harder to show it on a comparison chart like above, because rackets with 5/5 and 1/1 would have to be close together because their power/control ratio is similar... (ie. AT800OF and DE both have 5/5 on the table, but on the chart they're rated differently, but, people say DE has more power and less control than MP99, but its not the case in the table nor the graph) i think a 10 point scale (or even higher) would be better at comparing control/power on different rackets. the graph could also be modified so that rackets with 5/5 have bigger circles than rackets with 1/1, to show that they have good offensive AND defensive capabilities. same goes with flex. very flexible, flexible, medium, stiff, and very stiff are very subjective. maybe it should be based on a 10 point or higher scale